[Closed] BBC Breakfast: Should helmets for cyclists be made compulsory

even worse- parents putting lids on their little darlings and not bothering themselves, what message is that sending

Tricky one that.

Kids have much softer heads (skull not fused yet), and are way more likely to manage to hurt themselves while doing 5mph along a completely flat traffic-free path.

But explaining that to a grumpy 3 year old is tricky.

One of the main reasons I recently got a helmet, after not bothering with one for ages, was to avoid the [i]"but you don't wear one daddy"[/i] discussion. 😀

cycling is dangerous, when it really isn't

Cheers,
Jamie

Would they be happy for them to be knocked over and potentially suffer head injury as teenagers because they looked at mum and dad not wearing a lid so did the same?

Emotive as always. 😕

Would you be happy for your teenagers to break their neck because you never wore a neck brace?

Or not be seen by a car because you never wore a fluoro high-viz vest and helmet cover?

Dunno about you, but when I was a teenager (about 25 years ago) no one wore helmets.

to avoid the "but you don't wear one daddy" discussion

The same with lifejackets in boats, IMHO.

I want Little Miss CFH to grow up thinking it's just normal to wear a helmet on a bike or skis. Not to compel her to wear one, or to legislate for that, but more to just make it a perfectly normal thing to do.

(previous page is fixed now by the way)

So they don't want the little darlings to have a little bump to the head when going for a pottle on the footpath.

Very sensible. Little kids are prone to falling over, their skulls are soft, and they will be travelling at the sorts of speeds helmets are effective at. They're also not old enough to make their own risk assessment.

Would they be happy for them to be knocked over and potentially suffer head injury as teenagers because they looked at mum and dad not wearing a lid so did the same?

see above. 99% of the time cycling is safe- it just takes one old duffer not looking for you to be spread on the tarmac and be on crutches for 5 months. I'm glad didn't have to recover from major head trauma as well.

problem is that you don't know that the helmet did anything, you can guess it did but you don't know. People have been falling out of trees for milenia and the human race is still around. Heads are stronger than you think.

In your case, should the "old duffer" have been driving? what punishment did he receive, what re-education, retesting, etc etc. If you take the recent case where a driver killed a second cyclist, if he had been banned after the first death there would not have been a second death. How many drivers squeeze by at pedestrian refuges? What would make cycling safer banning drivers form attempting stupid manouvres or making them where a helmet?

I, like most people, would rather not be hit in the first place than worry about whether i have a broken arm, jaw, skull etc, after being hit and whether i should have been wearing a neck brace, helmet, pressure suit, etc to reduce the injuries.

see above. 99% of the time cycling is safe- it just takes one old duffer not looking for you to be spread on the tarmac and be on crutches for 5 months. I'm glad didn't have to recover from major head trauma as well.

Much like walking, then.

Dunno about you, but when I was a teenager (about 25 years ago) no one wore helmets.

[img] [/img]

Much like walking, then.

Cheers,
Jamie

Not quite, no. You don't tend to share the same space as traffic traveling upto 60/70mph.

Because cars never mount the pavement? And pedestrians never cross the road?

Instead of legislating for the compulsory wearing of helmets, I wonder if a more gentle tack would work- would supplying a helmet with every new bike, by law, encourage more people to use them?

Cheers,
Jamie

Would they be happy for them to be knocked over and potentially suffer head injury as teenagers because they looked at mum and dad not wearing a lid so did the same?

I spent a lot of time & effort making sure that my kids were properly trained & they did a lot of cycling with me before I let them ride their bikes around on their own*, at no time did I insist that they wore helmets - my choice & no emotive judgement statements necessary thanks.

* as all teenage boys they still did effing stupid stuff that could have killed or seriously wounded them

I want Little Miss CFH to grow up thinking it's just normal to wear a helmet on a bike or skis. Not to compel her to wear one, or to legislate for that, but more to just make it a perfectly normal thing to do.

Good idea. That's the approach we take.

Most sports don't have this kind of hangups about safety equippment. Only cycling and rock climbing seem to do it. Does anyone really complain about life jackets when doing water sports?

Not quite, no. You don't tend to share the same space as traffic traveling upto 60/70mph.

And yet the risk of death per mile is [url= http://road.cc/content/news/68212-dft-casualty-statistics-rank-driving-cycling-walking-and-motorcycling-risk ]roughly the same for walking[/url] as it is for cycling.

(With a large proportion of deaths caused by cars on the pavement!)

Not quite anicdotal, however im sure i read a report from NZ that said that there was no drop in the loss of life regards cycling with complusary helmets. However they could not say what % had been saved from brain damage as a result due to it being so hard to quantify.
As previously pointed out generally if you get hit over a certain speed its gonna cause damage to all parts of the body.
I personally have had an off on the road and my helmet saved me from a nasty head injury. Also had many off road spills where the helmet has taken the brunt.
Off road i'm taking measures to protect myself from myself. On road i'm taking measures to protect me from others.
My kids think its great wearing helmets as its part of the gear Daddy wears!
I dont buy the making helmets complusary will reduce cycling numbers either.

I want Little Miss CFH to grow up thinking it's just normal to wear a helmet on a bike or skis.

I think this is a good plan. If they've only ever worn a helmet then in theory they shouldn't suffer from the same risk compensation that we do.

(Of course they still face risk compensation by drivers etc but there isn't much you can do about that)

Because cars never mount the pavement? And pedestrians never cross the road?

Cheers,
Jamie

Most sports don't have this kind of hangups about safety equippment. Only cycling and rock climbing seem to do it. Does anyone really complain about life jackets when doing water sports?

We're not really talking about 'sports' cycling in general though are we. We want cycling to be part of everyday life surely - occasional sports participation isn't the same thing.

I was watching one of those 'fail' compilations with some friends the other day - they showed various people doing all sorts of stupid stuff, but it was only when they were on bikes and not wearing helmets that they would get called 'idiots'.

Jumping off a building with no helmet = fine. Jumping off a building on a bike with no helmet = idiot.

Makes no sense whatsoever but that's how we've been conditioned to think.

If they've only ever worn a helmet then in theory they shouldn't suffer from the same risk compensation that we do.

(Of course they still face risk compensation by drivers etc but there isn't much you can do about that)

The other point which seems to be based on the fact that drivers aim for cyclists with helmets on despite not seeing cyclists most of the time.

We're not really talking about 'sports' cycling in general though are we. We want cycling to be part of everyday life - occasional sports participation isn't the same thing.

+1 exactly & I don't want to have to put a helmet on & carry it round the shop when I cycle down to the local co op

I wonder if a more gentle tack would work- would supplying a helmet with every new bike, by law, encourage more people to use them?

Do the same with cars, and I'll agree completely.

Of course cars mount the pavement sometimes near pedestrians, just very rarely. And of course you cross the road, but it's not that same as riding for miles and miles in exactly the same space as as cars! The point is you've far more exposure to idiots in cars on a bike in the road than pedestrians.

The risk to pedestrians is about the same as the risk to cyclists. So yes, it is the same.

Most sports don't have this kind of hangups about safety equippment

Is cycling a sport though?

If your racing, training etc then i agree it is a sport, and as most governing bodies expect you to use helmets in competition it makes sense in training.

But

Is riding to the shops sport? If it is, then is walking a sport afterall there are walk races. Is driving a sport, look how much car racing appears on TV and those rally cars and touring cars look very much like the cars you and i drive everyday? So it must be a dangerous activity???

I dont buy the making helmets complusary will reduce cycling numbers either.

Look at the experience in Australia:

"I believe we'd be better off without it [compulsory helmet laws]"

"I think we should trial repealing the legislation to see what happens if we don't have to wear helmets all the time, and I don't think you'll get the massive increases in adverse events that people fear"

"We saw [b]a drop in ridership when the legislation was introduced of about 30 per cent[/b] and this actually makes it less safe for the rest of the cyclists, because there's this safety in numbers phenomenon."

-- [url= http://road.cc/content/news/21503-strewth-aussie-academic-calls-repeal-countrys-compulsory-bike-helmet-laws ]Associate Professor Dr Chris Rissel, School of Public Health at Sydney University[/url]

We're not really talking about 'sports' cycling in general though are we. We want cycling to be part of everyday life surely - occasional sports participation isn't the same thing.

Which is what they do in Denmark and Holland... cycling is just the default mode of transport.

In your case, should the "old duffer" have been driving? what punishment did he receive

Cheers,
Jamie

(snip) not all of us go in for risk compensation though. Just prefer to protect the brain if something bad happens..

Is that not the risk compensation that you don't go in for?

Is riding to the shops sport?

I grew up taking a boat to the shops, instead of a car/bike/walk. I know that as a kid, I saw my parents not wearing lifejackets for that same journey, and just assumed that they were obviously something that onlychildren wore. Hence, when I got a little older, I wanted to [i]not [/i]wear one when I was blatting the Dory across to the shops. Pretty much the same as Graham's point earlier, "Why don't you wear one, Daddy?".

Always worn one for sailing, though. Never any desire not to!

The risk to pedestrians is about the same as the risk to cyclists.

Cheers,
Jamie

Does anyone really complain about life jackets when doing water sports?

Depending on the watersport, yes. I was quite happy with the small amount of floatation offered by my windsurfing harness instead of the bulky lifejacket I had, even knowing it wasn't going to be as effective. If I was sailing a yacht I may not bother with a lifejacket at all, but I wouldn't canoe without one.

Therein lies the problem: "cycling" covers all manner of activities from racing down the Fort William course to riding in a large peloton to pootling along a canal towpath. There lies a HUGE difference in risk along that spectrum of activities.

I wonder how many of those pedestrians are kids running out into traffic, rather than cycling safely on a cycle lane to and from school

Why don't you find out and tell us, rather than constructing hypothetical scenarios to mask the lack of evidence for your position?

The other point which seems to be based on the fact that drivers aim for cyclists with helmets on despite not seeing cyclists most of the time.

There is [url= http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ ]good evidence[/url] that drivers do pass more closely to cyclists wearing helmets.

This strongly [i]suggests[/i] that drivers treat cyclists differently if they are wearing a helmet.

Common sense really - if you were driving and had to pass someone on a bike who was casually dressed, looked a bit wobbly, and didn't have a helmet on then you'd probably be more cautious than when passing a head-down lycra'd up roadie. I know I would.
That's third-party risk compensation right there.

Why don't you find out and tell us, rather than constructing hypothetical scenarios to mask the lack of evidence for your position?

Cheers,
Jamie

GrahamS.

I take you point with the AUZ stats, However i'm more thinking of it in a different cultural mentality. I dont think that 30% of cyclist hit the roads without helmets in this country. On my weekend road rides probably 5% on my commute 10% off road cant remember seeing any one without a helmet. (Personal expirence not fact. no flaming required)
Also same in germany and denmark. Cycling is not perceived as dangerous as there are so many cyclists. Drivers are more likely to be cyclists themselves so have more patience and have more awareness. We have a problem in this country with the perception of cyclists and lack of regard most drivers have for the space and speed.
I do feel like i've got a massive target on me when i put my hi vis gear on. That i dont understand! And bus drivers!

I wasn't aware I had to cite references for every post on here

Really? On a helmet debate? Are you new here or something? 😉 😆

Oh, I am sorry, I wasn't aware I had to cite references for every post on here. I suppose you want a bibliography for every conversation in you have in the pub do you?!?

Ok, so it's just something you made up. We'll dispense with it then.

Been having the same argument on the Spokes facebook page. Think this is one of these situations where peoples personal experience (in their own minds) will always trump any analytical, evidence based approach. I've given up arguing the point.

That's third-party risk compensation right there.

So, is it enough to take off my helmet to be safer? Or do I need to weave about all over the road too? In the interests of safety, of course.

This point got my attention on the 1st page (before the maelstrom of bullshit and statistical ****tery):

hjghg5 - Member
I'm not in favour of compulsion, but I'd see some merit in a compromise - compulsory helmets on roads with higher speed limits (maybe kicking in above 40?) With the flip side being more 20mph limits (ie reducing the limit on the roads where helmets aren't required). No helmets required onoff road cycle paths/bridleways/anywhere with no cars.

I see where you are going and I think ultimately, agreed compromises probably makes sense but the set of compromises above is perhaps skewed slightly the wrong way, @40Mph+ helmets will be of diminishing protective benefit, in a collision with a car obeying the limit in a 20Mph zone a helmet has a better chance of being effective...

I don't think compulsory wearing of a helmet should be brought in, perhaps a good compromise would be compulsory inclusion of a [U]basic[/U] helmet (compliant with BS EN 1078) in the sale of any bicycle as well as including appropriate literature (supplied by DFT?) providing some basic pointers for "safe cycling on the road", correct fitting and adjustment of a helmet, sources for further information, and contact information for organisations that provide training, this does push some of the responsibility off onto bike shops, but their role is only to supply equipment and information allowing the cyclist to make an informed decision on their own PPE.

edit - beat me to it:

Instead of legislating for the compulsory wearing of helmets, I wonder if a more gentle tack would work- would supplying a helmet with every new bike, by law, encourage more people to use them?

Cheers,
Jamie

I'm sure there are issues with that suggestion but it seems more reasonable and Compulsion / conditional compulsion would be unenforcable, and simply used as a diversionary tactic for dangerous drivers trying to dodge a harsher sentence...

[I]"Yes M'lud I was traveling at twice the speed limit, Yapping on my phone and half pissed, but he wasn't wearing a Helmet..."[/I]

As soon as cycle helmets become compulsory then abscence of one on a cyclist involved in an RTA will be seen as a possible mitigation for crap driving, and "Victim blaming" ensues...

there are better compromises to be struck IMO...

[i]Also same in germany and denmark. Cycling is not perceived as dangerous as there are so many cyclists[/i]

Cheers,
Jamie

molgrips - Member

That's third-party risk compensation right there.

So, is it enough to take off my helmet to be safer? Or do I need to weave about all over the road too? In the interests of safety, of course.

there's a tricky pinch-point on my route home, i started off riding over to the left, but learned quickly about being 'doored', i've tried calmly riding in the primary position, but get abuse followed by 'punishment passes' so have settled on wobbling around eratically* - i get loads more space, and no abuse, result! 🙂

(*it's easy, just ride around the many potholes)

GrahamS - Member

There is good evidence that drivers do pass more closely to cyclists wearing helmets.

There is [url= http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ ]good evidence[/url] that riding primary also makes drivers pass more closely.

😉

I dont think that 30% of cyclist hit the roads without helmets in this country. On my weekend road rides probably 5% on my commute 10% off road cant remember seeing any one without a helmet.

Yeah that roughly fits with what I see, though it is about 50/50 on my traffic-free commute.

So why would legal compulsion help if we already have such high rates of voluntary usage?

I think there is a very common misconception that damage to cycling numbers happens because helmet compulsion comes in and silly shallow people say [i]"Screw you if I have to wear a helmet then I'm not doing it"[/i].

I don't think that is what really happens.

More realistically the compulsion law comes in, with an associated gritty shock-and-awe advertising campaign showing how [i]terribly incredibly dangerous[/i] it is to ride a bike, even if you are just pootling down to the shops. There's lots of media coverage of how many cyclists are killed etc (with no attempt to put it in the context of total road deaths).

And as a result people say [i]"Screw that, cycling is dangerous, I'm taking the car"[/i] or worse, [i]"No kids, you can't have a bike, cycling is dangerous. Go play on the Xbox."[/i]

Ok, so it's just something you made up. We'll dispense with it then.

[b]I wonder [/b]how many...

Cheers,
Jamie